Intended for healthcare professionals

CCBYNC Open access

Rapid response to:


Antidepressant efficacy of agomelatine: meta-analysis of published and unpublished studies

BMJ 2014; 348 doi: (Published 19 March 2014) Cite this as: BMJ 2014;348:g1888

Rapid Response:

Dear Editor,

1. I endorse the principles of Retraction Watch
"retractions as a window into the scientific process"

2. I'll quote from a previous response posted today on the BMJ:
"I also take it very seriously when evidence does not support statements about an active pharmacological principle, especially when there are serious concerns about the safety and effectiveness of a molecule. The source of the misleading information (e.g., pharmaceutical company, peer-review medical journal, governamental, academic institution, etc) doesn't matter."

3. I'll quote from the previous response to this paper "In this first letter, I prefer to put emphasis on real data of published and unpublished agomelatine studies, allowing numbers to speak for themselves."

4. This paper doesn't meet the quality standards of the BMJ.
Question: any reason not to retract?

Yours sincerely,

Jorge R.

Competing interests: I support open data and transparency in research.

22 August 2014
Jorge H Ramirez
Professor of Pharmacology
Universidad del Valle
Cll 4B 36-00 Univalle sede San. Fdo. Edificio 116.